Feign

Random indeed.

Why would you bother timing it, anyway? That'd be useless information to know.

I think the focal point of your previous post is the fact that your beliefs are fine-tuned and makes the most sense (apart from other issues). Now down the line of our conversation, I have picked up some aspects of your concept of deism, like the concept of God or afterlife (although a fragmental view of it). So this is where my old question enters the arena again, where is your intellectual security coming from? In other words, explain to me why do you think your belief is the most consistent/logical/plausible. As you might know, logic/rationalism isn't something subjective, if you find it logical, of a surety I would find it logical as well (if both of us are being honest that is ^_^).

As for your reasons for rejecting scriptures, let me be honest here, I did not really understand what you said. :-( Please explain this part to me once more.

As for your denying the attribute of Justice for God, well we've pretty much reached the point where we agree to disagree. But let me just say this: even if we start with your premise i.e. God is Loving, then it would mean God is virtuous, and I cannot imagine a virtuous God not being Just to his Creation. Justice is something which is not found in this life, in laymen's terms, good people suffer and bad people prosper. So I think it is logically impossible for someone to believe in a virtuous God and disblieve in the Abrahamic concept of hereafter (i.e. Justice being served).

To comment on the issue of hereafter which you described, this actually brings us back to my primary question, what is the intellectual basis behind these postulates? Other than any intellectual basis to back it up, it would only be an assertion.

With that said, let me drop a comment or two on the paradigm you embrace. By your own admission, I think the road you chose to tread is one that's been formed by your subjective view of life, and what would make this life-death-afterlife process more desirable. You have then taken this subjective premise as an axiom, and tailored your worldview in accordance with this. This is why I fail to see any intellectual basis to your worldview (of course this is from my subjective pov, and you are welcome to criticise me on rational grounds), rather, I think you have taken the answer to the "what makes it more worth living" question as your intellectual basis. If what I have hypothesized up to this point is right, then my next deduction would be that the premise on which your worldview rests is subjective, since people's perception of meaningful existence is subjective. So this has created sort of a bubble of assumption, through which the consideration of other worldviews would not penetrate.

Sorry for being so blunt and direct, but all of the above was said based on the premise that:


So I think you should allow yourself to consider other worldviews, and check which one is more sensible/consistent, rather than which one is more desirable, and take the result of this finding to implement in your life. Especially in the case of rejecting religious scriptures, to start off I could not understand what you were saying as mentioned before, and by all means I suggest you give them the benefit of doubt.

Cheers
Hassan

I can't without laughing. And I have a really high pitched laugh (compared to my voice), so I tend to avoid laughing if possible. *attempts to stare back unblinkingly*







My eyes hurt.

Eh, I'll get used to it.
*stares back disdainfully*

Heheh. That's brilliant!

Sometimes, when they aren't in the mood.

's okay. You've confused me enough that I want to see it and get the story straight. XD

Sounds intriguing, although a little hard to follow.

What's it mainly about?

Nice. I may or may not look into it.

I can see that~

Yeah, I understand.

Nice new images, by the way.

Heheh. She's not the only one who does that.

I only flirt with people who know me well enough to figure out that I'm not serious.

I think what the majority of this post of yours boils down to is the notion that the concept of hell is unfair, so that is what the focus of my response is going to be. ^__^

But before we get into that discussion, let me clarify something that I probably should have clarified before our discussion started. The purpose of my previous post was to remove any intellectual obstacles you might have towards considering Abrahamic Theism as a worldview (the term is general, I know). Don't misunderstand though, it is not my purpose to "convert" you so to speak. It's just that I take pleasure in talking about the philosophical paradigm I accept, follow and take pride in, and the pleasure is only enhanced once I see someone else appreciate it :-) But then again, don't we all?

The following excerpt is taken from an article by an new Muslim from Belgium, he is kinda like a big brother to me. This summarizes where I am coming from:


So this motive so to speak is not merely a whimsical decision rather something I take upon myself as an ethical dictation. I hope you get my point there.

What I mean by "obstacle" is an intellectual doubt, which prevents you from considering my paradigm. People can have a lot of doubts, this doesn't of course mean all of them are intellectual, and I do not think these emotional doubts should be regarded as good reasons not to consider, or even accept, worldview x or y.

So moving on to the problem of hell: as I have demonstrated in my previous post, there is not really any intellectual case against fate vs. hell. Your cases rests on the premise that hell is unfair nonetheless. This seems to me as an emotional doubt, and emotional doubts do not have an objective answer, as pointed out before. However, to remove the internal friction you might have with this issue, do consider this: the "perfect" concept of God would have to contain both love and justice. love comes with a host of other emotions like mercy and grace, while justice, while associated with mercy itself, would also have the connotation of wrath in it. So when we come down this tangent, the concept of hell seems plausible: we expect God to be merciful, but also Just: and his Justice is manifested by his punishment on the sinner. I think we need to consider this dual attribute of God i.e. Loving and Just to get a true picture of this issue. So to deal with your query in specific: it's not God's "fault" that He punished Satan, rather Satan, by its own arrogance and wrongdoing justly deserves the punishment inflicted upon him. In Islaam however, we believe that the mercy of God is more than His Wrath (this is found in an authentic saying ascribed to the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him). The discussion on how this is manifested however is a long discussion, if you want I can supply you with more details, if God wills.

Also, realize, according to the Islaamic worldview, God never really "leaves" anyone. The door of sincere repentance is open to everyone, and God is most generous in accepting repentance. In the Qur'an the following is mentioned:

"O my Servants who have transgressed against their souls! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah: for Allah forgives all sins: for He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Turn ye to our Lord (in repentance) and bow to His (Will), before the Penalty comes on you: after that ye shall not be helped." [39:53-54]

So the door of repentance is open to anyone and everyone. But if someone stubbornly refuses to submit to God, then of course God can be held accountable for this. And this door of repentance is open to Satan! Satan is left the choice of repenting to God, but we believe that due to his own extreme arrogance he will never do so. There is a narration reported from the Prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him) where he invited Satan to Islaam, but he refused, and promised that he would never submit to God. Also, in another saying of the Prophet (may peace be upon him):

"If the son of Adam (referring to human beings) had a valley of gold, he would desire another; and nothing would fill his mouth save the dirt of his grave. But Allah pardons whoever repents." (found in Saheeh al-Bukhari) [I guess you don't understand the references I give and how to look it up etc, but for the sake of intellectual honesty I provide references]

In yet another saying of the Prophet (may peace be upon him), he said:

"Allah said: O son of Adam! So long as you call upon me and ask of me, I shall forgive you for all you have done, and I shall not mind. O son of Adam, were your sins to reach the clouds of the sky, and were you then to ask forgiveness of me, I would forgive you." (Found in the collection of Tirmidhee)

So the point being, the door of repentance and God's mercy is open for anyone and everyone, so long the repentance is sincere and one repents with the mindset of submission to God. From this point of view, God never really leaves anyone, and God's love and mercy to his servants is tremendous. (reminds me of another saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him: "I am as My servant thinks I am. I am with him when he makes mention of Me. If he makes mention of Me to himself, I make mention of him to Myself; and if he makes mention of Me in an assembly, I make mention of him in an assemble better than it. And if he draws near to Me an arm's length, I draw near to him a fathom's length. And if he comes to Me walking, I go to him at speed.") However, the idea of Justice is also present as one of His attributes, and this is the crux of the matter.

With that out of the way, let me comment on some aspects of Deism you got across.

Rather than starting from the premise that religious scriptures are falsehood, I believe a more rational choice would be to give them the benefit of doubt, and then passing a verdict on them. Also, people tend to forget the fact that world religions differ significantly, and so do their scriptures. So what may apply in the case of a certain religion does not necessarily apply across the board. I'm not saying you committed this fallacy, but it's better to be on the lookout for it.

As for the concept of non-revealed religion, I agree that the thought might be adventurous, even fascinating, but I don't think it is rational (sorry for sounding confrontational, but when people with differing worldview discuss, they don't agree on everything ^_^ so don't take it personal). Here is my reason for thinking so:

A Just God would judge us based on our virtue, and not our knowledge. Had Truth and Falsehood been unclear, then people would have to employ knowledge to seek out what the truth is, and on top of that, there would have been many differences of opinions. For this purpose, God purposely revealed His religion to His Prophets coming in different time and places, to guide people to light. This way, people are expected to believe on using some basic rationale, and mostly virtue. Deep knowledge on Science etc tends to play a minor role in this decision. This is not to say that one cannot arrive at the right decision (and by right I mean Divinely Revealed) by study of science and philosophy (I myself did to an extent). But generally speaking, God tests people's virtue, and not their knowledge, because people differ in knowledge, while all people more or less share the same level of virtue and common sense.

Not only that, if we rely upon worldly knowledge to know the deeper meaning and purpose behind creation, then this might not get us very far. I say this because the philosophy of science relies on empirical observations, and not their philosophical underpinnings. The issue of purpose behind this Universe is not a matter of empirical discussion as you very well know, so science cannot be expected to pass a verdict on this, since that would be overstepping its authority. What people are left to do is come up with an infinite number of parallel philosophies, and no one would know which one is right and which one is wrong. At the end of the day philosophers might have a good time out of this, but mankind in general wouldn't have any practical benefit. I do not believe that a Just God, who has bothered to put together such a precise Creation would only leave it to wander in misguided (or unguided perhaps) darkness. So I think the concept of God revealing a religion sounds more rational than not revealing one.


Im being really brief here, quite honestly a lot more can be said on this issue.



As for the Islaamic Scriptures, my Islaamic studies focus heavily on the preservation of scriptures. I think the fact that in and of itself gives Islaam a lot of cogency is the Islaamic scriptures have been preserved intact for the past 1400 years. The Qur'an, which we believe to be the literal word of God Himself, has not undergone the change of a word or even a letter. Not only so, the methodology of interpreting Islaamic scriptures and the interpretations have also been preserved, to keep the scriptures from being subject to whimsical interpretations. This is the reason why there are no difference of opinion, at all, in Islaamic orthodoxy in matters of theology. There are some slight differences in the issue of legislation, but that doesn't promote sect formation or anything of that sort. So yeah, the Islaamic sources of knowledge have been meticulously preserved. This can only be appreciated once you look into the scriptural history, like I did :-)

Sorry again for the long post, and let me know your feedback, especially on the topics we differed upon.

Cheers
Hassan

NEW PROFILE AND THEME!!!! XD

Where's it from? xP

Kaboom!

Oh, but mayhem is so entertaining.

Haha sounds like an interesting person.

Ooh, fun~

lol like anything really pays well these days. WORKING: FUN TIMES